|
Bryce Lynch
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
-
I just returned from DDXP.
ObBackground: I started with Holmes & 1E over 20 years ago and like a free-form BASIC best. My wife likes 3E best and started in the 2E era. We both hate 4E.
The play-tests were NDA and I'm not playing Paper & Paychecks in order to be killed by an Ancient Red WOTC. I was reasonably happy, but then again my session was run by a VERY good DM. He made 4E Ravenloft fun last year and he made the play-test game fun. A good DM transcends game systems, however I don't think he had to work very hard. It's hard to judge an early draft of a game system, hence the 'reasonably happy' statement. I played D&D and I liked it and enjoyed myself. My wife played D&D and liked it and enjoyed herself, and liked it more than 3/3.5.
The real test of 5E will come with the rules modules/subsystems. This portion was not included in the play test to my knowledge, so I'm going to talk freely about it, given what they've said about it at the seminars and my own thinking in the last few days.
The rest of this post has NOTHING to do with 5e. This is NOT a *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink* statement.
Modularity:
I'm pretty sure that Supplement 1: Greyhawk, was just a booklet of optional rules. The same for Unearthed Arcana? Most versions have a statement to the effect of: if you don't like something then throw it out, or change it. And yet … we don't? Oh, we house-rule the crap out of certain sections, but there's a tendency to use what's presented in the books as the gospel. "I don't like skills so I don't like 3E." Then don't use the skills, geez! Wanna play OD&D? Remove all classes except the Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric and get rid of skills and feats. Bang! OD&D. Want a more variable combat system? Allow the defender to roll a d20 and add his bonuses instead of taking 10 on his defense every time. Want group init? Then do it. We all house-rule the rule like crazy, and yet we complain endlessly about The Rules. 5E will be successful, in my eyes, if they can present the CORE of the game and then everything else as options. For example:
Combat Option 1: d20+bonus vs defenders d20+bonuses.
Combat Option 2: d20+bonuses vs defender "Take 10"+bonuses.
Combat Option 3: "Take 10"+bonuses vs defender d20+bonuses.
All 3 have different flavors. Option 2 is OD&D. Option 1 is more swingy. Option 3 might be more cinematic.
Group init or individual init. (with the advice that group speeds play and individual is more tactical.) Maybe group the options, so there's a 'tactical' set and a "fast play" set, and a "cinematic" set.
If they can design a game that FINALLY gets the gamer community to drop and house-rule, as a way of life, then they may be able to accomplish their goal of unifying everyone under "one" set of rules.
The public play-test got me thinking a lot about game design, and I finally 'got' 4E. It makes sense as a natural evolution of D&D and I stopped hating it. It just should have never been released. I'd like to talk about 2 mechanics in 4E: the At-will, Encounter, Daily and the STAT vs DEFENSE combat mechanic.
At Will, Encounters and Dailies have always been in D&D. Your at-will was an attack, swinging your sword or some such. A thief may have had an encounter power, like backstab, and Vancian spells can certainly be thought of as a daily. What 4E did was to recognize what the earlier versions of D&D were doing and codify that. Now backstab was explicitly listed as an encounter. No ambiguity as to when you could use it.
A sword blow was always (ok, AMOST always) STR vs AC. Missile were DEX vs AC. Feats in 3E made melee attacks DEX vs AC. Spells in 3E sometimes attacked FORT, or REF. If we stretch we can also say that earlier version included this mechanic: dwarves get better FORT bonuses in 1e … err, I mean poison saves. 4E recognized what was already naturally going on and simply codified it. It took the ambiguity out with the result being a much cleaner rule system. Both of these represent a natural evolution of the D&D system, evolving from idiosyncratic mechanisms (d6 init, low AC/THAC0, % thief skills and d6 open door rolls) in to a core system that makes sense in 3E and 4E. No more multiple die types for many rolls, just a d20+ bonus … and you could take 10 on many of those rolls.
For example: a martial attack is d20+bonus vs AC. AC is 10+ bonuses. In essence, you take 10 on a defense roll all the time. For spells in 3E the attacker set the DC by adding a bonus to 10, with the defender making a save by rolling a d20+bonus. This was the exact opposite of how a martial attack worked, but both are really a sub-case of a single rule: you roll a d20+bonus and try to roll higher than a d20+bonus. In some cases you can take 10 on the roll. That's amazing and I can't believe I just now picked up on it.
I have a hard time believing ANY player of ANY version of D&D, from OD&D to 4E can take exception with those two mechanics, and their evolution. The 'Breath Weapon' saves and descending AC might be treasured from a nostalgia standpoint but I can't see how anyone could defend them as specifically supporting a certain play style, unless it was the OBFUSCATING style. (But, I am willing to listen to you if you can articulate it.)
In other thoughts: 4E gimped the exploration element of the game by removing resource management as a game play element. Exploration always has a timer attached. Wandering monsters. Lair reinforcements and new traps. Etc. By removing a timed element you gimp the Cause & effect play of explorations. Your actions no longer have consequences if you don't have to worry about resources. This is why tracking light and food is so important, as if the healing rate and wandering monster checks. The longer you spend in a dungeon the greater the chance you're gonna die from a wandering monster, or your light will run out, or so on.
All in all, I think 4E made at least one critical sin and maybe two or three. First: it put the game design RIGHT IN YOUR FACE. DAILY. ENCOUNTER. AT WILL. SURGE. STR VS DEX. INT vs WILL. This is something that only an SPI game designer could love. It looked like board game rules. The fluff surrounding the rules were terrible, or just ignored completely. This overly regimented rule system extended to the character sheets, where you had page after page of powers, poorly laid out, with mountains of text for eve the most simple of things. This slavish devotion to form and the 4E writers style guide turned the game in to "hunt for the power" instead of Doing Cool Things. This horrible layout & rules style was reinforced by the official products. Modules & Encounters had the same mechanistic layout and style. It was hammered in that this was the right way to play the game. And people left this over-powered mechanistic version for the OSR, or Pathfinder.
This concludes my random thoughts on game design theory and modularity.
-
Steven Robert
United States
Altadena
California
-
I'm with you on the modularity thing - that's always been there, or at least as long as I've been playing. Perhaps making it more explicit will help, but I suspect most groups will still be playing with as many supplements as they can.
So far, the more I hear about 5E the less revolutionary it sounds. Which is probably a good thing - at least, for those of us who want to retain the kind of D&D we've always enjoyed.
-
Bryce Lynch
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
-
I left before the seminar today but just read the transcript. [No set skill list. Make up your own.]
"My uncle was jeweler so I get a +2 to appraise." Or, "My woodcutter parents were poor. I get +2 to find fruits and edible plants." This clearly comes from the indie movement. I HATE skills and don't want to go anywhere near them. I LOVE this idea though. It directly encourages character development and more free-form play.
SO far I have liked everything I've seen with two or three minor exceptions, which may be non-core, presentation related, tuning related.
-
Brian Leet
United States
Montpelier
Vermont
-
Yes, yes, yes! I immediately saw that about 4E, and immediately appreciated how smooth it made things. My complaints became only:
 The promised balance wasn't quite right out of the box, often making combats too long.
 Character powers were made too samey, losing the flavor of the different classes.
 Where are the awesome modules?
4E was a wonderful experiment, but I think it will be okay for it to be a branch that is never pursued heavily. I'm glad that all indications are they are pulling back from the feel a bit. I hope that means they keep the simpler foundation, but drape it in some prettier clothes, while also allowing for use of that base in a much more open ended manner.
-
Steven Robert
United States
Altadena
California
-
bryce0lynch wrote: "My uncle was jeweler so I get a +2 to appraise." Or, "My woodcutter parents were poor. I get +2 to find fruits and edible plants." This clearly comes from the indie movement. I HATE skills and don't want to go anywhere near them. I LOVE this idea though. It directly encourages character development and more free-form play.
This sounds like abilities and focuses from Dragon Age, actually...
-
The Harnish
Germany
Duisburg
NRW
Cult of The Harnish Leader
-
PghArch wrote: Yes, yes, yes! I immediately saw that about 4E, and immediately appreciated how smooth it made things. My complaints became only: The promised balance wasn't quite right out of the box, often making combats too long. Character powers were made too samey, losing the flavor of the different classes. Where are the awesome modules?
I had similar issues. #2 was a big problem. Of course the answer to #3 was and still is Paizo because all of the excellent writers ended up going on to work for Paizo.
Unfortunately 4E has almost assuredly killed D&D for most of my group: we briefly discussed that 5E was now in development and one of my players (who is also the group's other GM and the "best" player in the group; he also felt "burned" by 4E after buying in to it in the beginning) announced that there was no way at all he was going to play 5E, and more than one other person nodded in agreement. Which is fine with me because my own tastes in regular gaming with my adult friends has moved beyond anything I can get out of any edition of D&D. However, I still would be willing to try 5E for a short-term game but even that doesn't like it's likely to happen with my main group.
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
Something about "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." doesn't strike me as something I want to play and certainly not something that deserves a new edition.
I was already doing that. I already freely made up whatever I wanted. I already told players "Yes, that book, no, not that other book." I already borrowed and added from editions and games.
I can see where they're going with this. It's well intentioned but pretty base and spiritless - they're just trying to make a big tent and get people back under it. This isn't anything clever or unifying. It's a big empty promise; "if you build it yourselves, you'll have a great time!" is the message I am getting between the lines.
Thanks. What did I need you for if I'm going to have to do it all myself anyway?
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
You know.
I don't really want one person sitting at the game playing 3ed and another playing 1ed. I want all of us playing one game. The same rules. I can't be bothered to arbitrate and adjudicate one edition. Now, I'll have to mix and match and memorize a mashup of all 4?!
I want a game where the person who likes 3ed gets some of what they want and the person who likes 1ed gets some of what they want, but everyone plays the same game. Compromise. Not capitulation.
-
DMSamuel
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
I guess my problem with some of this is that... well... if I want to play 1st edition, I'll just play 1st edition. I already have almost everything produced for several editions of D&D and I can play any of those or a retroclone if I want to. I am not a person who has to be playing the new shiny or needs a game to be "in print" with constant output of published materials, so... Why do I need to pour money into a "new" edition? That pretty much sums up my entire feeling on the matter.
I wish them luck, I really do - I really believe that the WotC people just want to make a good game*. More power to them. But I'm pretty burnt out on talking about D&D and I am basically staying away from all the DnDNext talk.
* I am talking about the designers here, not the company. I know the company wants money, that is not what I am talking about
-
SJ Benoist
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
-
I agree with lorddillon for the most part. I think what I really learned from 4e, and honestly 3.5 as well, is my older books are exactly as good as they ever were.
BECMI & AD&D (1st or 2nd, your choice) define what Dungeons & Dragons IS to me, literally. I now believe this will always be so, and I don't need a new printing (literally or in spirit). I'm glad there will be something similar in print so that latter gamers will have easy access to those styles, but I'm pretty much set. Settings and modules have room, optional rules have room, but I don't need another from-the-ground-up "core" version of the game, ever. That may not be what the sales folks want to hear ... but it's true.
I may as well also confess, I LOVE DIFFERENT SUBSYSTEMS 
They made the abilities "feel" different, especially early on in exploring RPGs. I don't want everything to work the same way. It is easy to learn, but it is also boring and flavorless (IMO).
I hated the D20 movement/glut solely because of the general consistency in mechanics. I really hated watching other systems I enjoyed get abandoned in pursuit of "the one system to rule them all"!
Anyway, it turned out fine in the long run. We have everything now, games with a heavy tactical focus (Pathfinder), a light tactical focus (Savage Worlds), role-playing focus (Dragon Age), plenty of generic systems, horror systems, indie systems, free systems, tons of superhero systems, POD, PDF, and so on and so forth.
Aside from general public appeal, which I still claim peaked in the early 80's, things are the best I have ever seen. I'm glad they are headed they way they are with 5e, but I can't see myself buying in.
-
Steven Robert
United States
Altadena
California
-
lorddillon wrote: I guess my problem with some of this is that... well... if I want to play 1st edition, I'll just play 1st edition. I already have almost everything produced for several editions of D&D and I can play any of those or a retroclone if I want to. I am not a person who has to be playing the new shiny or needs a game to be "in print" with constant output of published materials, so... Why do I need to pour money into a "new" edition? That pretty much sums up my entire feeling on the matter.
I think they're largely aiming for people who enjoy the "freewheeling style" of 1E/BECMI, but using rules that use the best principles of 3E/4E. I think there's a fairly large population in that crossover - myself included - but...
Quote: But I'm pretty burnt out on talking about D&D and I am basically staying away from all the DnDNext talk.
QFT. The 5E news just made me tired and sad, even though I was no particular fan of 4E. Now I'm finally able to look at it and digest it, but I still don't have the energy to get excited about it.
-
The Harnish
Germany
Duisburg
NRW
Cult of The Harnish Leader
-
I would concur with the lack of real excitement from the news - part of this may be the lack of substantative details due to the idiotic NDA stuff (why bother? WotC seems to have missed the marketing point of a public playtest), the rest is just that it's all going to be pointless unless WotC changes the way it interfaces with fans and its focus on selling rules rather than adventures.
-
Bryce Lynch
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
-
I've read all your comments and I agree with every single one of them (including the apathy one), with a single exception, but having played 5E and reflected on it I am slightly less ... bitter? More optimistic? I'm ot sure. Less negative, to be sure.
I think the result of this will be:
*) A marked decrease of people stomping on the gas when they see WOTC employees crossing in front of them.
*) An ABILITY to sell a % of new product to the "not current edition" players. If they can sell you a setting book that you find interesting, or some options book or module that works with your version then they get revenue. You may not be in to pop music, but sometimes you buy an album or song that appeals to you. I currently to not even LOOK at 4E products of any type. If things go well I would consider using a 5E product, just as I consider Fantasy Trip, T&T, Warhammer Fantasy, and other supplement/products.
*) On a more personal note: I should have more games that I can participate in. If a friend wants to run 5E I can play, instead of refusing as I do with 4E. Same for con games: I can now look at the con games that use 5E instead of dismissing all RPGA and 4E games out of hand.
I understand the feelings towards WOTC. It is sad that we are all at this point. It would be nice to return to a point of 'current D&D', whatever that is, not inspiring outright hatred & loathing.
Shines the name, shines the name Dungeons & Dragons!
cosine wrote: You know.
I don't really want one person sitting at the game playing 3ed and another playing 1ed. I want all of us playing one game. The same rules. I can't be bothered to arbitrate and adjudicate one edition. Now, I'll have to mix and match and memorize a mashup of all 4?!
I want a game where the person who likes 3ed gets some of what they want and the person who likes 1ed gets some of what they want, but everyone plays the same game. Compromise. Not capitulation.
I believe things are are moving toward the second category, not the first, according to my current understanding.
I loathe subsystems. I just want to concentrate on creative play, not look up or remember rules. "Make an int check at +2" lets me roll forward with the game.
-
Brian Cooksey
United States
Nashville
Tennessee
-
bryce0lynch wrote:
*) An ABILITY to sell a % of new product to the "not current edition" players. If they can sell you a setting book that you find interesting,
This is me. If they release Dark Sun in this edition I'll look it over.
-
Scott McGougan
United States
Texas
-
bryce0lynch wrote:
In other thoughts: 4E gimped the exploration element of the game by removing resource management as a game play element. Exploration always has a timer attached. Wandering monsters. Lair reinforcements and new traps. Etc. By removing a timed element you gimp the Cause & effect play of explorations. Your actions no longer have consequences if you don't have to worry about resources. This is why tracking light and food is so important, as if the healing rate and wandering monster checks. The longer you spend in a dungeon the greater the chance you're gonna die from a wandering monster, or your light will run out, or so on.
I agree.
I should say that prior to 4E I had never participated in any organized play, but with 4E the majority of my play time was in LFR. It's entirely possible, in fact likely, that my feelings on this are colored by my experience with LFR.
It seems that things such as resource management and exploration are now replaced by skill challenges (which could be written to allow for resource management but aren't). I initially thought skill challenges were a neat way of codifying certain types of non-combat game elements, but I quickly soured on them.
One thing that concerns me that I haven't seen mentioned by others is the focus on "the iconic". This is a cross-edition issue, but is particularly germane when a new edition is being developed. There are two elements to this, and when "iconic" is used in some of the transcripts I've seen it's sometimes unclear which is meant.
I think it's a laudable goal to allow for iconic play styles. You want to roll dice like a AD&D fighter? Let's provide that. You want to develop a spell memorization strategy for general spelunking in the underdark like an AD&D wizard? That too. You want a 4E AEDU or essentials experience? These are all things that I think can be accomplished with a pre/post-4E approach to classes that exhibit different base mechanics.
What makes me anxious is putting an emphasis on classes as cut-outs or stand-ins for iconic characters. I fall into the category of people who don't want to re-create beloved characters from fiction. I know there are people who feel otherwise. I think both camps can be satisfied, but when the discussion of how the ranger should be designed as a class devolves to "well, we need to make sure people can play their own instance of Aragorn, Legolas, and Drizzt", this is when I get worried.
One of the elements that I think 4E "got right" was the modularity/customize-ability that the power choice system allowed. It came with its own set of problems, but it had some upsides. And one of the things Essentials "got right" was acknowledging that somebody might want to play a fighter that wasn't a tank.
If there were one thing I would say to the folks working on the next generation of D&D (or any game) it would be: support the iconic character archetypes all you want, but please leave room for us to create our own icons.
I'm curious how others feel about this.
-
|
|
|
Posted Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:08 pm
